Daily Times

It is easy to stand on the sidelines and criticise, particularly with the rampant reach of social media, as a result of which, we find ourselves grappling with a troubling phenomenon: criticism often outweighs reason.
The country’s justice system, once revered by the public, is facing significant challenges as judgments increasingly come under scrutiny. Final decisions are often sources of politicised protests, and therefore, the need to reinforce the pillars of justice, which are continually under strain, has never been more urgent.
Recent developments within the Islamabad High Court, marked by the appointment of three new judges, have sadly ignited unnecessary controversy. This reaction, seemingly driven by petty agendas, has obscured the fundamental legal framework that governs such decisions.
That Section 3 of the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010, provides a clear mandate regarding a fair balance in the bench, reflecting our diverse tapestry, further supported by the powers given to the president by Article 200 of the Constitution became a moot point for the critics as they whipped up a tempest in a teacup. So what if the practice of transferring judges from provincial courts is rooted in precedent (Justice Sardar Muhammad Aslam Khan and Justice Bilal Khan)?
Whether the naysayers agree or not, our courts’ evolution cannot be kicked any further down the road, especially following the enactment of the 26th Amendment, which reclaimed parliamentary powers and dismantled antiquated norms that allowed select judges to arbitrate their peers’ fates without accountability.
The raging outcry, therefore, reflects more about the underlying motivations than the constitutional merits of the actions in question.
Many dissenters, who previously favoured leniency towards political figures, cannot be expected to find the right side of the fight. When it comes to enforcing the rule of law, there appears reluctance to act with integrity, preferring personal interests over judicial responsibilities.
Now, facing a shift back towards constitutionalism, the irony cuts deep: how to stomach the scales balancing in an unfavoured direction.
It is disheartening to see some lawyers threatening to boycott proceedings. They must realise that the system cannot be swayed by any singular ideology. Justice, as enshrined in the Constitution, is meant to be impartial and fair, unaffected by personal allegiances.
If boycotting and protest become the new touchstones, history will remember these actions not as a courageous defence of the law but as a lamentable retreat into self-interest. Isn’t it high time that we re-evaluate a judge’s worth–not by the camp they belong to but by professional acumen and an unwavering dedication to delivering justice?